Time to Make Waves at Ports

0

The boldest proposal from the Los Angeles 2020 Commission last week was the one to combine the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The notion is that it would be better for the ports to work together to try and halt their eroding share of business.

That proposal is interesting and well-intentioned but politically undoable. What city wants to give up its Sugar Daddy?

Here’s an idea: Forget trying to combine the two. Instead, the state should appoint a czar to stand over both ports. The goal? Help the shipping lines, truckers, terminal operators, importers and others do business there – which is the critical function no one seems focused on. The state is the proper authority since the ports are on state land. In fact, it’s surprising that no state official or agency is already tasked with promoting the ports.

And as long as we’re making this proposal, let’s take the next step and assign a first duty: The czar should conduct a market study to determine the costs and hassles of doing business at the local ports compared with competing gateways. Shipping lines, terminal operators, etc., have long complained that the ports are expensive and a time suck, thanks to California-specific environmental regulations as well as various fees and requirements. It would be vitally important for all to see if those complaints have merit. And, if so, whether those costs and hassles can be reasonably reduced.

When the widened Panama Canal opens, transpacific cargo ships will be free to slip around Southern California and go straight to competing ports on the East and Gulf coasts, several of which have been beefing up to handle the expected increase in business.

The ports constitute one of the legs holding up the local economy. And that leg may get a sharp kick in the shins in the next few years. Everyone knows that kick is coming, but there’s little determination to do much to soften that blow. That’s how a port czar could help.

• • •

Are you starting to wonder if the Dodgers owners and Time Warner Cable made a serious misjudgment?

I mean, here it is, about a dozen games into the baseball season, and as of this writing, still no carriage deal. Remember, the Dodgers and Time Warner a couple of months ago were confident that a deal would be struck by opening day. But Cox, Charter, DirecTV and other cable and satellite providers have snubbed the proposal to pay Time Warner extra money to carry its new Dodgers channel.

Years ago, a cable or satellite provider may have been willing to take on the Dodgers channel and jack up monthly bills by a few bucks without thinking much of it. But now? Maybe not. (For more, see the article on page 1.)

Cable subscriptions have been more or less stagnant lately. For evidence of why, I don’t need to look far. My own two sons, out on their own, aren’t hooked up to cable, and my 13-year-old daughter asked to have the television removed from her bedroom last year. This is hard for a baby boomer to say, but TV isn’t cool anymore.

With weakened demand for TV, this is no era for a cable company to raise bills. For evidence of that, again, I don’t need to look far. According to our own poll about a month ago (like the one on the lower left corner of this page), we asked how much money respondents would pay each month to get the Dodgers channel, and 82 percent said zero. Granted, the poll is totally unscientific and a very small sample; on the other hand, the respondents are mostly business people who generally are in a position to pay a few bucks extra. That stat – 82 percent won’t pay a dime! – has got to chill the Dodgers and Time Warner.

You have to assume that cable and satellite companies will take on the Dodgers channel eventually. But the longer this goes on, the more it appears Time Warner won’t get the money it expected. And the more it appears that the Dodgers and Time Warner miscalculated.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].

No posts to display